Next generation of polar researchers agree on three priorities
Next generation of polar researchers agree on three priorities
复制标题
下一代极地研究人员就三个优先事项达成一致
DOI：
10.1038/d41586-019-01718-1
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
64.8
通讯作者：
MacFerrin, Mike
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MacFerrin, Mike
我高兴地读到，《自然》杂志现在积极推广预印本的使用，自1997年以来一直支持预印本的传播(见《自然》杂志569,307；2019年)。值得记住的是，大约50年前，当第一批预印本分发时，你对这种做法不屑一顾。1966年，你曾数次抨击美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)当时率先推出的预印本。同年7月，您将它们描述为“攻击性的”(自然211,333-334；1966)。接下来的一个月，你声称预印本的特点是“难以获得、无常、文盲、质量参差不齐以及缺乏深思熟虑的判断力”(《自然》211,897-898；1966)。到了11月，他们被定为“对学术的冒犯”(《自然》212,865-866；1966)。第二年，这种预印本的第一次迭代被扼杀了，因为杂志抵制它们(见Go)。大自然。Com/2wmpbbw)。你的动机大概是为了保护你的财务状况，因为你觉得NIH的预印件服务--以及它被提议扩展到物理学--威胁到了你的地位和利润。正如你现在意识到的，情况并非如此。
I read with pleasure that Nature is now actively promoting the use of preprints, having backed their dissemination since 1997 (see Nature 569, 307; 2019). It is worth remembering that when the first preprints were distributed 50 or so years ago, you frowned on the practice. Several times in 1966, you railed against preprints, pioneered at the time by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). In July that year, you described them as “offensive”(Nature 211, 333–334; 1966). Preprints, you claimed the following month, were characterized by “inaccessibility, impermanence, illiteracy, uneven quality, and lack of considered judgment”(Nature 211, 897–898; 1966). By November, they were “an offence against scholarship”(Nature 212, 865–866; 1966). The following year, this first iteration of preprints was killed off because journals were boycotting them (see go. nature. com/2wmpbbw). Your motivation was presumably to protect your financial position, because you felt that the NIH preprint service—and its proposed extension into physics—threatened your status and profits. As you now realize, this is not the case.